"American Liberal" <> wrote in message . > In article <>,

"Rowland Croucher" <> wrote: > >Book review: The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobbel, Zondervan 1998.

> >History?' It's probably the best book to give to a thoughtful teenager or

> >undergraduate or adult who's asking questions about whether Jesus of

> >Nazareth was God, whether you can

> >trust the New Testament documents, and are the eye-witness accounts of

the > >apostles reliable? (But I wouldn't give it to graduates in Philosophy or

> >Theology: it would provoke too many 'Yes, buts'... )!

> Actually, you shouldn't give it to anyone with the ability to think.

> It's only applicable to those who already assume the bible is alarady

> historically, and absolutely, accurate.

Hmmm. I am intrigued by precisely the meaning you ascribe to the phrase "ability to think." I wonder if you would mind outlining your understanding on that point. The definition here is not the only definition of "ability to think". Some of my friends would use it to mean "the ability to ask questions" without ever leading to the obvious conclusion that questions have a purpose. That purpose: to be answered by the asker, to be answered by the very act of asking the question (for which one uses the term rhetorical) or, alternatively, for the recipient of the question to explore the topic more fully. Without purpose, any question is legitimate, but not all questions may have value to someone who is interested in answers.

So with that said: I will ask a question. The question of the "applicability" of the bible is one of relevance. Who determines the relevance of a document to another person? Here is my premise in asking the question. The laws of the land may be taken by some to be irrelevant to their lives. They may take no interest in them, and so long as they adhere to them, even without knowing them, that perception may serve them well. However, once they are involved in some legal action for some (perceived) breach of the law, the law immediately becomes relevant to them. In the first instance, the principle of the presumption of innocence is vital. Then the history of the law (or laws)

regarding the particular breach in question becomes relevant...in whatever source they may be found: common law or statute law.

I ask the first question to lead to my second question: What would be the implications for individuals if the bible is relevant to all, but for that relevance to only become apparent to individuals at their own unique and vitally important point in time?

> >Strobbel is a legal journalist, who applies his forensic thinking to the

Big > >Questions about the origins of Christianity (and spices his

search-for-truth > >with some interesting stories from his years as a legal journalist).

>

> A biased person, such as Strobbel, is NEVER interested in the truth; nor

is > he able to separate fact from fiction - no matter what he, or you, claim

about > "forensic thinking".

>

> "Forensic thinking" means nothing without forensic evidence; neither you

nor > Strobbel have any!

I will leave the meaning of "forensic thinking" to others. However, the issue of "bias" is interesting. My understanding of the Heisenberg principle in quantum mechanics is that the very act of observation changes the behaviour of the object being observed. How is this relevant here? The premise of objectivity is very highly valued (and rightly so, to both scientists and non-scientists alike), but it is also an extremely scarce commodity. Quite simply put: there is no belief system (or non-belief system for that matter) that can be expressed in words without those words being influenced by that very same belief system. Those words are not and cannot be "purely objective." One might use the word "bias" to describe that. The assignment of some value judgement to the term "bias" is not really helpful in an analysis of the issue at hand: the applicability or relevance of the bible.

Some definitions of relevance may help us in our search. Relevance: "important, useful, suitable for a particular purpose, connected with what is happening or being discussed, the relation of something to the matter at hand, applicability to social issues." So let's apply these to the bible.

Is it important? Some my try to limit its importance to being merely an historical document. While I do not hold to this limitation, it does mean that it is relevant.

Is it useful? Some may try to limit its usefulness to those who "adhere" to it. While I do not hold to this limitation, it does mean it is relevant.

Is it used for a purpose? There are some valid limitations upon the purposes to which it may be put (although not all would agree on the precise limitations.) But if there is one purpose, it is relevant.

Is it applicable to social issues? In the first instance it does say something about the nature of evil in our world (not all would agree with what it says on this topic, but it is certainly topical at this point in time). It also talks of God's plans and our responses in regard to other humans and evil (again, not all would agree with what it says on this topic.) However, it is relevant.

The bible may be disagreed with. However, to say it is irrelevant may be somewhat hasty. It is my premise that it is relevant, and can therefore be applied to the life and love of individuals and groups of people. One who disagrees with it, yet is prepared to consider it relevant, may need to consider being precise in their point or points of disagreement with it.

regards, Rob Oliver